(Reuters) - Allowing income tax rates to rise for wealthy Americans, and maintaining rates for the less affluent, would not hurt U.S. economic growth much in 2013, the Congressional Budget Office said on Thursday, stepping into a dispute between Republicans and Democrats over how to resolve the so-called "fiscal cliff."

The report by the authoritative non-partisan arm of Congress is expected to fuel President Barack Obama's demand for higher taxes on the rich, part of his proposal to avoid the full impact of the expiring tax cuts and across-the-board spending reductions set to begin in early 2013 unless Congress acts.

Republicans argue that any tax increases would be devastating to the economy, particularly to small businesses, and to U.S. employment rates.

They have held firm to their position that none of the cuts, which originated during the administration of President George W. Bush, should be allowed to expire.

The CBO said the tax hikes for the wealthy would reduce job growth by around 200,000 jobs, much less than the 700,000 in job losses claimed by Republican Speaker of the House John A. Boehner.

Obama has also stuck to his position, with the White House reiterating on Thursday that the president sees his election victory on Tuesday as an endorsement by voters of his view on higher taxes for the affluent.

"One of the messages that was sent by the American people throughout this campaign is ... (they) clearly chose the president's view of making sure that the wealthiest Americans are asked to do a little bit more in the context of reducing our deficit in a balanced way," senior White House adviser David Plouffe said.

UNCERTAINTY SCARING MARKETS

The disagreement over the tax cuts is a major roadblock to any agreement in Congress, as it is coupled with the spending issues also on the table.

The lack of progress in ending the standoff is spooking global markets, which fell again Thursday in part because of political uncertainty in Washington.

The concern was underscored by the credit rating agency, Standard & Poor's, which said on Thursday it sees an increasing chance that the U.S. economy will go over the cliff next year. But it also said it expects policymakers will probably compromise in time to avoid that outcome.

Analysts at the agency see about a 15 percent chance that political brinkmanship will push the world's largest economy over the fiscal cliff.

With only five days remaining before the U.S. Congress begins its post-election session, top political leaders in Washington provided little new assurance Thursday that they can act in time.

In an interview with ABC Television's Diane Sawyer, Boehner repeated what he has been saying for two years: "Raising tax rates is unacceptable. ... Frankly, it couldn't even pass the House. I'm not sure it could pass the Senate," he said, according to a transcript provided by the network.

The Democratic White House did not respond publicly to an initiative launched on Wednesday by Boehner to get talks going to avoid the cliff. The president is scheduled to make a statement on the economy Friday.

In the absence of concrete developments, the CBO report became the focus of argument Thursday. Reports by the CBO are designed to assist Congress in making difficult fiscal decisions, but they are also used by partisans to bolster their own arguments.

A statement from the Republican-controlled House Ways and Means Committee said the CBO report "confirms that raising taxes on all taxpayers will result in fewer ‘help wanted' signs hanging in the windows of businesses across the country. Job creators agree, and have made it clear, that raising taxes will result in a weaker economy and fewer jobs for the millions of Americans struggling to find work."

Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen, ranking member of the House Budget Committee, said the report "underscores the need to prevent the so-called fiscal cliff from harming American families and businesses, and to instead enact a balanced, long-term deficit reduction plan."

The term "balanced" plan is the Democratic code for tax increases.

The tax cuts were enacted during the Bush administration, but were made temporary, in part to reduce the appearance of exploding the already soaring U.S. deficit over the long term.

They were extended in 2010 for two years under an agreement between Republicans and Obama, after Republicans swept the mid-term elections that year and took control of the House.

That extension is running out, just as the trigger date arrives for automatic spending cuts Congress approved in 2011 as part of a deal to avoid a default on U.S. government debt.

VARIOUS SCENARIOS

The report from CBO laid out the economic effects of a number of options that lawmakers will consider as they deal with the fiscal cliff events.

The CBO said extending all of the tax cuts would boost U.S. gross domestic product growth next year by a little less than 1.5 percentage points.

If the tax rates were extended only for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earnings less than $250,000, CBO said, growth would rise by 1.25 percent.

Wall Street estimates show third-quarter GDP growth was 2.8 percent. Unemployment is currently at 7.9 percent.

Eliminating the automatic spending cuts to military and domestic programs would add back 0.75 percentage points of growth, as would extending an expiring payroll tax cut and long- term unemployment benefits that are expected to end next year, the CBO said.

But the office also warned of the consequences of taking such actions without reducing deficits that have run at $1 trillion in each of the past four years.

"CBO expects that even if all of the fiscal tightening was eliminated, the economy would remain below its potential and the unemployment rate would remain higher than usual for some time," the report said.

right everything is on the table. Military, entitlements etc. Nothing can be off the table if we are really going to ever have a balanced budget again.

A balanced budget again? In my research every budget for the past 40 years has been a deficit budget. Coming in under the limit with borrowed money is not a balanced budget, we still were borrowing money.

A balanced budget again? In my research every budget for the past 40 years has been a deficit budget. Coming in under the limit with borrowed money is not a balanced budget, we still were borrowing money.

His point stands -- we had our fiscal house in outstanding order at the turn of the century.

We had an election. Obama said I'm going to give everyone a tax break up to the first $250K of income. If you make more than that, good for you. Romney said tax breaks for all. Obama won. The election decided this issue. Elections have consequences.

Guess they should have voted the Republicans out of power in the house then.

This country build the largest middle class in the history of the world after WWII. It's the reason we gained so much power post WWII. The reason we are the economic leader of the world. No one is even close.

We strengthen the middle class, we strengthen our economy and America. It's the middle class, stupid.

Maybe if the rest of the world were bombed to the stone age again, we could be the sole provisioner of their recovery goods for a nice while.

Our post WWII prosperity wasn't a function of high taxation. It was us being the only industrialized entity around to feed, clothe and equip the world.

__________________
You ever notice how on stop lights, green means go, but on a banana it's the opposite? Yellow means "go ahead." Green means "slow down." And red means "Where the **** did you get that banana?"

His point stands -- we had our fiscal house in outstanding order at the turn of the century.

We eroded that over the past decade.

Here's a lil history lesson for you - Clinton is responsible for the sub prime loans fiasco, where banks had to approve risky loans. So what happened? With new consumers in the market, the market boomed and Clinton et al claimed it a great success, but of course, all it took was time for people to start faulting on those loans that they couldn't afford in the first place. Spin it forward, add in a war, and here we are. Point is, that 'economic boom' Clinton & the Dems proudly claim was just the lighting of the fuse; our economy now is the true result of that measure.

Now about 'taxing the rich'...

#1. Most rich people actually own companies / corporations... who pass the costs of their taxes right on to the consumers...

#2. The US is already around the top 20 of all nations topping out at ~35%

#3. Small business - which employ most Americans - are taxed at individual rates, so when you talk about raising taxes on 'the wealthy', you're raising taxes on those businesses too, and guess what they are going to do? Raise prices and layoff workers...

Just like the bailout, its flat out bad economics. No one in their right mind spends more / hires more when they have less money to do it with.

Here's a lil history lesson for you - Clinton is responsible for the sub prime loans fiasco, where banks had to approve risky loans. So what happened? With new consumers in the market, the market boomed and Clinton et al claimed it a great success, but of course, all it took was time for people to start faulting on those loans that they couldn't afford in the first place. Spin it forward, add in a war, and here we are. Point is, that 'economic boom' Clinton & the Dems proudly claim was just the lighting of the fuse; our economy now is the true result of that measure.

Now about 'taxing the rich'...

#1. Most rich people actually own companies / corporations... who pass the costs of their taxes right on to the consumers...

#2. The US is already around the top 20 of all nations topping out at ~35%

#3. Small business - which employ most Americans - are taxed at individual rates, so when you talk about raising taxes on 'the wealthy', you're raising taxes on those businesses too, and guess what they are going to do? Raise prices and layoff workers...

Just like the bailout, its flat out bad economics. No one in their right mind spends more / hires more when they have less money to do it with.

Knock that common sense shit off. Haven't you heard? The retards have a mandate.

Here's a lil history lesson for you - Clinton is responsible for the sub prime loans fiasco, where banks had to approve risky loans. So what happened? With new consumers in the market, the market boomed and Clinton et al claimed it a great success, but of course, all it took was time for people to start faulting on those loans that they couldn't afford in the first place. Spin it forward, add in a war, and here we are. Point is, that 'economic boom' Clinton & the Dems proudly claim was just the lighting of the fuse; our economy now is the true result of that measure.

Now about 'taxing the rich'...

#1. Most rich people actually own companies / corporations... who pass the costs of their taxes right on to the consumers...

#2. The US is already around the top 20 of all nations topping out at ~35%

#3. Small business - which employ most Americans - are taxed at individual rates, so when you talk about raising taxes on 'the wealthy', you're raising taxes on those businesses too, and guess what they are going to do? Raise prices and layoff workers...

Just like the bailout, its flat out bad economics. No one in their right mind spends more / hires more when they have less money to do it with.

You fail to understand the real objective. The idea we will generate more revenue is not in play. Nor does it have any hope of contributing to a lower deficit. Democrats know this very well. The total rvenue projected is insignificant and the likely hood it will slow growth is real even using Obamas numbers. So why then? Because Mr Obama and many others do see successful people as a resouce for funds. That is all. It is a cover rather than doing what needs to be done and get more people back paying taxes at all levels.

Politics makes up its own math. You dont need to understand it. It is measureable however. And therein lies hope for real change if its not too late

__________________
Frazod to KC Nitwit..."Hey, I saw a picture of some dumpy bitch with a horrible ****tarded giant back tattoo and couldn't help but think of you." Simple, Pure, Perfect. 7/31/2013

Dave Lane: "I have donated more money to people in my life as an atheist that most churches ever will."